Its not that shocking actually. the Tsn and sportsnet commentators have pretty much put him in there as one of the 6-7 absolutely "must be there" type guys and in orientation he was matched with Nash and Crosby (two other "cannot miss" on almosts all the pundits lists.

Agree with Nash and Crosby. But why not run them with Toews? I think Iginla is fine on the second line.

The 2002 squad, 6 players are under consideration to make the team this year, 3 defensemen, a goalie, and one other forward, Ryan Smyth. We all know that defensemen on average play longer than forwards and goalies longest of all. All are either over 1000 games, or very close. Only two players on the squad, Gagne and Brewer are nowhere near a thousand games.

Agree with Nash and Crosby. But why not run them with Toews? I think Iginla is fine on the second line.

1st line, second line, whats the big difference. As soon as you acknowledge that someone is "fine for the second line" on a team as stacked as team Canada, you have pretty much said that they are good as a first liner too. Who plays with who at the actual Games will mostly depend on chemistry among the individuals but its actually pretty silly to get drawn into a distinction as to whether a player will be first line or second line on team Canada

As for Toews-- good player but its a team of good players. I expect the coaching staff to ride the hot hand and mix and match based on who is playing well. Hell it would not surprise me if a line we annoint as the "3rd line" started getting the most ice time and PP time if they really start clicking

Then why does the argument for Iginla revolve around his performance in 2002?

I didn't make that argument-- Mine is simply that he should qualify as a solid memeber of the top lines and as such placing him with Crosby and Nash could make sense. But if he clicks better elsewhere in the lienup its all good.

The 2002 argument however would run that he was a n elite, even a dominant performer as a late addition to the 2002 squad and has thus 'proven" he can perform at that level. Combine that with his consistent strong play of recent years and you have a good reason to at least give him the very best opportunity to play at that level again by placing him with the best/most suitable linemates possible.

Toews who you suggested is a very good player but has no real proven international pedigree. He may emerge as the star of the event but he's probably not the guy you pencil in for first line ice time right from the outset. That must make sense even to you .

Toews who you suggested is a very good player but has no real proven international pedigree. He may emerge as the star of the event but he's probably not the guy you pencil in for first line ice time right from the outset. That must make sense even to you .

Neither was Iginla in 2002. I don't see why Toews, who is a very talented player especially with talented linemates shouldn't get the same opportunity as Iginla. I'm not saying that Iginla is a bad player or that he doesn't deserve to be on the squad, simply that we are looking at the lesson of 2002 in the wrong way. A better analogy is that Iginla now is like Sakic in 2002, the veteran experienced player.

As he stands on a tiny spit of land with the water rising all around him, Gary Bettman must now understand his great miscalculations.

Taking on a single-minded, driven, hyper-competitive billionaire in a battle that revolves around cash, lawyers and resolve was perhaps unwise.

Believing that, after outflanking him once, outflanking him twice – the second time with the aid of the now incarcerated William (Boots) Del Biaggio – Jim Balsillie would simply pack his duffel bag and head back to Waterloo, Ont., was naive in the extreme.

Worrying more about image than substance, pretending that all was well in Phoenix while allowing the door of bankruptcy to swing wide open, was a massive tactical error. And now it all comes down to a single judge in a single jurisdiction given ever-diminishing options, his skepticism naturally high having been told several stories that simply weren't true.

Bettman and the NHL may still carry the day, Pyrrhic as that victory will seem, given the smoking crater that is the Phoenix Coyotes. Judge Redfield T. Baum's queasiness about wading into the sport's internal workings may yet cause him to dismiss Balsillie outright as a potential bidder for the bankrupt franchise.

But that's the only winning formula left now for the league – and even that will cost each and every owner a bundle.

The NHL can no longer cast itself as the saviour of hockey in Arizona or the best hope for the poor taxpayers of Glendale, who it is clear are going to lose their team and lose all kinds of money no matter what the outcome (though if Balsillie triumphs, at least they'll be able to cash a big fat cheque to help ease their pain).

Bettman can no longer assert, as he did under oath, that there would be a vigorous bidding war for the franchise, that other groups were lining up to buy the team and keep it right where it is. Now that Ice Edge has predictably evaporated – Wayne Gretzky's anti-Midas touch when it comes to ownership and potential ownership continues – you wonder just who the commissioner thought he was fooling, or how desperate he must have been to buy time.

And as for the creditors, who are Baum's primary concern, whether or not Jerry Moyes is ruled to be among them, it's hard to imagine that by the time the auction is finished they'll be better compensated by the NHL's final offer than they will be by Balsillie's.

As for the condemnation of Balsillie's character, and the NHL governors' unanimous decision to reject him as a prospective owner, the fact that (according to documents filed with the court) they did so more than a month after deciding to launch their own bid for the franchise strongly suggests mixed motives, if not an outright conflict of interest.

Given that the ownership review process would be one example of how the NHL plays by its own rules, and given that the league is arguing before the court that the sanctity of those rules is paramount, you'd think that might cause Baum some discomfort.

Still, trying to read his mind is a mug's game. And whatever he decides, there is the promise/threat of more litigation, of appeals to the highest courts. Puck drop in Hamilton … or Kansas City … or Las Vegas … is a long way away. The only thing that's certain right now is that plenty of tickets are still available for a season (or half-season) in Glendale. Just not sure who's going to be playing, who's going to be behind the bench or who's going to be paying their salaries.

But strip away, for a moment, all of the emotional and cultural baggage. Forget about what happened to the Winnipeg Jets and Quebec Nordiques, or Hamilton's many heartbreaking trips to the NHL altar. Don't mention Make It Seven, or launch into a discussion of which places “deserve” hockey teams and which don't.

Boil this one down to what it is, what it always has been in large part, a contest of power and money and smarts and ego.

Wright is doing very well. Goldfein took issue with his assertion that basing a business plan on winning every year was not sound. "Teams with losing records can make money?" Goldfein said.
"Given the city I live in, I can state that with confidence," replied Wright, who lives in Toronto.

Oh, snap.

"The issue is there are still many people out there that use religion as a crutch for bigotry and hate. Like Ben."
Ben Kenobi: "That means I'm doing something right. "